Editorials

Don Siegelman has always been an effective politician. He climbed from one elected state position to another until he finally reached Alabama governor's office, where he turned out to be an ineffective executive.

Despite that he was — and perhaps may be again — an amazingly popular Democrat in an overwhelmingly Republican state.

Did that fact play a part in his conviction on bribery and obstruction charges that sent him to a federal prison in Louisiana?

For now, our former governor has been released while his case is on appeal. He left his Louisiana prison on Friday. Perhaps now we will find out the truth about Siegelman's conviction — and let us hope sooner than later.

It can only be seen as a positive development that the House Judiciary Committee has announced its intention to hear testimony from Siegelman when it begins probing claims of selective prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department.

We shall see the outcome.

For the moment, though, let's remove the question of a politically-motivated prosecution and try to understand the trial and conviction of Don Siegelman in context.

The big offense — if you will — boiled down to Siegelman appointing Richard Scrushy to a seat he had previously held on a state hospital regulatory board in exchange for Scrushy's contribution of about $500,000 to a campaign seeking a state lottery for public education.

For this horrible offense, the former governor was sentenced to more than seven years in federal prison. No, U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller ruled, he would not be allowed to stay free while his case was on appeal. Instead, right there in the courtroom, Siegelman was handcuffed and sent straight into the prison system as if he had been convicted of knocking over a liquor store.

That moment may have felt very good for some, those federal prosecutors who argued so strongly for a tougher sentence, political enemies of Siegelman, and the multitudes who simply dislike him or his politics.

But how did all this appear to the supporters of common sense?

As if it were politically motivated, as if it were overkill, as if Siegelman was being treated as a common criminal for accepting what in essence was a campaign contribution. That is how it appeared.

Yes, we are a nation of laws; wrongdoers are not tolerated in our society. But this is ridiculous.

Siegelman's political career was likely destroyed when he was sent to prison and away from his family and friends for doing something elected officials routinely do.

What is the difference, one might ask, between Siegelman's accused crime and what President Bush does when he appoints a big campaign contributor to an ambassadorship?

There is no difference.

It is heartening that the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has seen fit to release Siegelman on appeal. That the court found that the former governor had raised "substantial questions of fact and law" when challenging his conviction gives hope that the entire thing might be overturned when the court hears his appeal.

Let's certainly hope that's the case.

Such a ruling will bring us back to the land of common sense, restore needed confidence in the federal judiciary and free a man who should never have spent nine months in prison in the first place.